Napoleon wrote, “History is a set of lies agreed upon.” This truism is becoming more and more apparent to our modern sensibilities as many of us recognize that much of history has been purposely manufactured. More easily understood is Churchill’s saying, “History is written by the victors.” Combine the two sayings and we begin to understand that we are on a very slippery slope when it comes to interpreting both the recent and ancient past.
This has come home to me in part, from reflections on the recent Bard conference that I attended and the subject of my prior post.
One of the subjects increasingly in the spotlight is chronology revisionism. Velikovsky introduced his theory on the “Greek Dark Ages,” the missing 400 – 600 year period of history at the beginning of the 1st millennium BCE and end of the bronze age. His followers still hotly debate this subject.
More recently, Gunnar Heinsohn has been working on a reconstruction of the first millennium AD. He has found 700 missing years. How can that be???
While I don’t have a conclusive opinion, I have studied many of the arguments and the evidence behind them and found them compelling. I have also heard in person from a number of these scholars, some of which attended the Bard conference. The more I look into the subject the more I am shocked to see the great lies and great ignorance of the past twisting the historical record almost beyond comprehension.
According to Henry Zemel and others, the ancient literary record that we have used to construct our current academically accepted historical timelines is filled with holes and outright fraud. The fraud comes from the work of scribes in the employ of kings to embellish or fabricate their lineages and the deep time origins of their culture. The Egyptians and the Greeks, as well as most ancient cultures were intent on establishing their claims to a history reaching far into the past, inventing ancient king lists and long ago victorious battles. If this is true in many cases as revisionists believe, we are looking at a giant mess. This fraud is not just about ancient scribes taking liberties, it is compounded by later poor translations and reinterpretations by people with different agendas.
Mainstream scholars cannot accept such conclusions, having accepted the literary record as foundational and bolstered by various laboratory dating methods on cultural artifacts and other cross references. However, as more and more archaeological data comes in and stratigraphical evidence emerges, scholars are finding that it does not match with the literary record. This is where the big fight is developing, and where in particular Gunnar Heinsohn is finding traction in claiming missing years in the historical record of the first millennium AD. Evidence of civilizations, battles, migrations, habitations, and grand buildings, all are missing! Is this because they haven’t been found yet, or are we misinterpreting the evidence already dug up and assigning it to wrong time periods? Why are buildings and artifacts supposedly produced 700 years after the fall of the Roman empire in places like Bulgaria and Poland follow the same aesthetic, artistic and engineering methods that Rome had, despite the intervening years being a dark age with complete loss of cultural continuity. These and other gross anomalies are evidence of some serious problems in a credible historical reconstruction.
In a later blog post we will explore these anomalies as Heinsohn has revealed them. For this article, we are more concerned with how literary based history could be written in such a way that many years could be fabricated and why this occurred.
Heinsohn believes, as do many of his peers, that the so-called medieval dark ages did occur and brought a loss of cultural continuity. Further, and specific to Heinsohn, this was caused by an earth catastrophe in the third century AD. The profound cultural discontinuity, once humanity passed through and emerged on the other side of this environmental setback, necessitated a recreation of an historical timeline. In the West, this was fabricated by the Church, creating a date of 1000 AD and then back filling in various cultural histories to the birth of Christ. What Heinsohn is finding is that there is not enough stratigraphical evidence in the ground to make up 1,000 years. There are only 300! Events, places, and things that are said to have occurred in 700 or 950 AD appear to have taken place in the 3rd century. This is an amazing story if true, and would show how some of our past is entirely reconstructed to cover up our lack of knowledge. Of course, this would have to have happened similarly to all high cultures across the world.
In this scenario, if one agrees with the evidence, one could argue that such an historical reconstruction might not have been guided by kingly hubris and thus a black lie, but that it was a series of white lies that were needed to give stability and meaning to a culture emerging out of a cultural wilderness, trying to find its feet again.
What I find helpful in imagining that such a thing could be true, is to witness today’s political, financial, and religious (scientism included) realities that are constantly being propagandized to the masses. For those of us looking behind the curtain to witness the demise of the hegemonic American empire due to its out of control hubris and greed, we recognize the great lengths that are being taken to deceive the public that all is normal. Everything is in service to maintaining the lie. The scribes of the king and his ministers are working overtime.
Has this always been so? I think through most of history, the great lie, the great cover-up operation has almost always been part of the story. How deep does this go?
For an excellent and easy to understand article on Heinsohn’s theory, read Tim Cullen’s review called “The Heinsohn Horizon” on his Malaga Bay web site here.